How will Trump handle losing the election?

I wonder how Lash will handle Trump losing. But only for a nano second.

Quote Lash:

And eight of the last ten most recent polls has Hillary Clinton leading Trump. Which is why the polls chart from Real Clear Politics, a site run by conservatives, looks like the following. Next!

You're such a weirdo.

Id rather that Hillary supporters feel that they are behind in the polls. This will make them sit up in terror, making themconsider the insane alternative that a Donald Trump presents this country, and then resolve to get to the polls and make certain that hes sent back to his parallel universe where he is the only citizen.

If the polls of the crowds at early voting in NC, and the anecdotal evidence I've seen means anything, I don't think the dems are taking anything for granted.

EXCELLENNNT!!
Are we sure that those crowds of NC voters arent scared Trumpies??
Im gonna be biting my fingernails till hes outta here an back to his cartoon network

One interesting phenomenon I've noticed this cycle is how a lot of folks on the left have bought into the notion that Hillary Clinton is an inferior candidate who wouldn't have been able to pull off a victory if Trump wasn't the option. I think this is dead wrong.

There are two parts to this. First, I understand some of the criticisms of her, such as her place inside a political system which has strong tendencies to support an existing structure of power. This doesn't apply only or even mainly to her but it seems to me a valid criticism. I understand as well that she lacks the charisma of her husband or Obama or others who have that characteristic and that has relevance to her future ability to effect public consensus.

On the other hand, I don't get the complaint that she is uniquely or unusually untrustworthy. Or that she is unacceptably covert and opaque in her dealings with the press. I see both of these aspects as a sadly predictable consequence of three decades of right wing projects to have people think of her this way along with a mainstream media which has often been eager to forward "scandal!" narratives and as a reasonable or understandable reluctance, after the last three decades, to imagine that the mainstream media will always or even mainly function as a rational agent

Second, I have been reading right wing media on pretty much a daily basis for more than a decade. Two years or three years ago, the smarter and more strategic minded conservative writers (at NRO or Weekly Standard, for example) were explicit in their perceptions that Clinton would be a formidable opponent because of her name recognition, her approval ratings (then), her knowledge and expertise, her experience, her gender, her certain potential to build a big and effective electoral machine and to capture large amounts of funding, and her doggedness. Not to mention that she's white. These folks understood they would have to front a very capable opponent to match what she would bring to the contest.

They also understood that certain avenues of attack would be unprofitable or worse, particularly overt misogyny. What they were left with was a continuation of the suggestion that "the Clintons" were dishonest and (as always in political races) that she had previously been a failure at her prior posts. Those are the two main narratives that they've been pushing since it became likely she would be the candidate. The covert misogynism was apparent in complaints of her "ambition" (normally a plus in the American myth story, particularly as understood on the right - see Donald Trump). Those narratives were fronted by right wing voices and effectively pushed into mainstream media coverage.

There was also a clear strategy to front another narrative, complimentary to the above, through Bernie Sanders' challenge. That narrative held that Hillary was merely a creature of the established system of elite power who was not selfless but selfish, who had no sincere goals to help average citizens but only those already privileged. These folks I was reading were clearly delighted at the prospect of Sanders' run and the narratives he forwarded because they commonly supported their own narratives.

Edit: And I should add here that we will continue to see this overall narrative but designed in the following manner:

She didn't win because folks voted FOR her, she won because citizens merely voted AGAINST Trump -> therefore she has no real mandate once in office. This is the de-legitimizing PR game and it is bullshit but it will be the reigning right wing line from here on out (earlier, actually, as the first explicit instance I saw of advice to Republicans to play it this way was about four months ago in NRO).

Thats what I been thinkin, It explains why someone like LAsh thought that she could pull the wool over our eyes by electing a Bernie to run against Trump.

Bernie woulda been an easier win for Trump neh? .

Let me quote Stringer Bell, Most def.

And ain't Lash a curiosity. She's like a bot that arrives with a T-shirt saying, "I'm a bot".

Hillary's team unequivocally discusses their desperation to run against Trump, and strategize in their emails how to elevate him from the pack. She's so unpopular she could only possibly win against a stooge.

It's hilarious how you strain to avoid the fact.

Wikileaks Wikileaks Wikileaks. You are a fraud. Like your candidate.

He beat Hillary and he'd clean the floor with Trump.

Yes. This, in itself, would be worrisome. The popular will (or at least an instance of this held by a significant portion of a population) is unpredictable and often has destructive consequences for the common good. There's no small irony here that the modern American right (a significant portion of it) has come to celebrate and long for street corner guillotines and to despise voices like Burke. One thing we can say about the #NeverTrump crowd is that they are, at least, consistent. Another thing we can say about them however is that they were deeply complicit in creating or fostering this beast that is now devouring them too.

But it isn't only Trump and his rabble of wild-eyed followers that concerns me here. Trump is definitely not the only agency out there who has set to a project of encouraging citizens to believe that representative democracy in America is a failed experiment or, more accurately, that it is an experiment that must inevitably fail. Because "government is the problem".

This notion long precedes Reagan. It is foundational in the Bircher mythos (even if there are earlier precedents). It's foundational too in Goldwaterism. And it is the key claim or idea that underpins what the Koch boys (and their formidable complex of supporting entities) are saying (not to mention, if more nuanced, by the Chamber of Commerce crowd.

Of course, there are the obvious reasons why such corporate entities would forward a set of notions which denigrate the capacity and legitimacy of group/citizen/government to limit and curtail corporate profit-taking. For such entities (particularly the most extremist of them) any contract which citizens forge and which constrain what these businesses can get up to, must be targeted, stopped or turned back.

"Government is the problem" is the necessary fundamental idea behind these endeavors and though Trump is a unique manifestation of the thing with all its destructive potential for democracy, he is nothing like the main proponent of it. We can rid ourselves of him and we will but the larger foe remains in place.

Much worse for you. I arrive with facts you're desperate to avoid.

Clinton, the DNC, and the media collude to make Donald Trump the Republican nominee.

https://www.google.com/amp/observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/amp/?client=safari

I posted about who is showing up at the early polls on a Hillary thread.

http://able2know.org/topic/343327-32#post-6290052

Interesting stuff at the links,including








the momentum needs to continue


Tim Kaine is pushing hard.

Sorry, I'm feeling yakky this morning. One last, then I'll shut it.

Several years ago, Grover Norquist said something I found very interesting. He said, "I'm not interested in what move individuals. I'm interested in what moves groups of people". I don't know whether he got this from Lenin (of whom he is a close student) or from some marketing whiz like Edward Bernays but a hint at what he has been up to is probably found in the "Reagan Legacy Project" which he came up with directed.

This was a project designed to create and maintain a mythology about Reagan. It included, for example, getting as many large public facilities as might be managed named in honor of Reagan. More recently, if you saw or read about the GOP primary contest that preceded this one, we saw this in Norquist's panel discussion that included all the candidates where he asked a question (something like, "Who is the greatest President ever?") for which there was only one acceptable answer (and every candidate offered the correct answer - and then Norquist congratulated them all for giving the right answer). What Norquist did here is well documented in "Tear Down That Myth" if you care to to spend $2 for a used copy.

(A little ps to the side here - in 2008-2009, folks on the right tried to duplicate this very successful propaganda move and set up the "George W Bush Legacy Project". It lasted a few months at maximum because it was just too steep a hill to climb. To which I can't help but say, Har dee har har).

Anyway, I think that Norquist's powerful insight here was that you can get a hell of a lot done by trafficking in mythologies. This quote from Richard Hofstadter hit me with a lot of force when I first bumped into it. It still does.

Now I'll leave off. God I love being retired. You can get up when you want, climb back into bed when you feel like it, have breakfast for dinner, or even put on a laurel wreath and danced naked in the forest under moon or sun. If you're a liberal, that is. Conservatives can never do these things regardless. It's a spring-tension setting inside them, I guess.

thank you, ince LAsh occupiies that other galaxy, she can draw upon her Romulan support.
A dose of facts you present helps me a lot.

Hofstader always took many more words than were needed. I think Elmore LEonard would have stated it precisely an concisely
"Its just the BIG LIE, that then becomes a slogan"

"The election is rigged" is just as toxic as "Obama isnt a citizen".
Lying sack o hit, that describes the Donald

He will have to come up with some similar scam to shine the attention that he so desperately needs. I think he will probably resume pawing women.

it's in the works

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-tv-idUSKBN12H1F2





http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/jared-kushner-donald-trump-tv-network (probably the best read on this right now)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/us/politics/donald-trump-tv-jared-kushner.html?_r=0

https://www.ft.com/content/7dc39954-940e-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of-women